Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walk of shame (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. per sources provided in discussion Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Walk of shame
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems more like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. Article has multiple problems which have been tagged for several years but not dealt with. As a phrase it may warrant a Wikictionary entry, but not an article. LukeSurlt c 22:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom without prejudice against someone, someday finding suitable sources and creating a real article. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete move to wiktionary. Anyone that feels that this article should be kept should probably read this.  Nefariousski (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Having problems for several years is not a reason to delete. Wikipedia has no deadline and it is our editing policy to keep articles in mainspace awaiting attention.  The article already contains several good sources including a book of this title which discusses the topic in detail.  The topic is therefore notable and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable expression that needs an article. When searching for "Walk of shame", Google news gives 2,380 results, Google books gives 636, and Google scholar gives 366.  Google itself shows 261,000 places where the expression has been used on the internet.   D r e a m Focus  13:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic.  The book of this name is, according to its Amazon listing, a work of humor or satire, rather than a serious discussion of the subject.  ReverendWayne (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete- I agree with ReverendWayne and Nefariousski's arguments. This article has been languishing long enough for people to find respectable sources, but haven't been able to. Time for this to go. Reyk  YO!  22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This article just needs to be re-written. Almost everyday I hear this term in college. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a phrase, yes, which is why it should have a Wikictionary entry. But all this article has the potential to do is define the phrase, which isn't really enough to be encyclopedic. 87.112.155.103 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Let's set aside many of the arguments above: "I've often heard this phrase," "It's a notable term because it has many Google hits."  Well, there are plenty of words I often hear or read, but dictionaries, not encyclopedias, are for looking up words.  By the way, shocking even to me, Google only returns 802 unique hits for this phrase.  Besides which, WP:GOOGLEHITS and all that.  On the other hand, to say this article has "languished" is not a particularly good reason for deletion.  But what do we have in terms of sources for this article?  A college paper sex column and references in books to people doing a walk of shame?  I've struggled to figure out what sort of encyclopedic (i.e. non-definitional) information this article could contain if it were actually well-written, and I'm not finding it.  It would look like, "According to one author, the walk of shame for males is characterized by poor or frowsy hair-styling, such as 'a bad gay-hawk.'  Another states that a walk of shame performed 'with head held high' is in fact a 'walk of fame.'"  In other words, all this article could amount to is a dictionary definition, followed by the opinions and anecdotes of various authors, most likely with a healthy dose of OR and "in popular culture."  There's no encyclopedic content to be had here.  I'm not saying there never will be—this is a newish phrase, after all, and some researcher could decide to do a study—but there isn't now.  It's one thing to say we'll keep a bad article because there's no deadline on making it better; it would be another thing entirely to say we should keep an article on a bad subject because there's no deadline on it becoming encyclopedic.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to One night stand. Best for all concerned. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think; the phrase 'walk of shame' can mean many, many things, rolling home after a one night stand, a player's walk back to the dressing room after being sent off in a game of football, a player's walk back to the dressing room after being out for a duck in cricket, etc etc blah blah. All these have in common is walking and shame. There's no clearly-defined, universal (or even generally accepted) meaning.  pablo hablo. 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Alright, I can't let this go unsaid; there are secondary sources that address the topic. Here, in The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: College, there is a lengthy discussion of how to do the walk of shame, how to make it less obvious, how to avoid having to do it, and safety for the young ladies who intend on hooking up anyway. Here is an entire 245-page book entitled The Walk of Shame: A Survival Guide. Here and here are the kind of weak, humorous coverage that might make people think the topic isn't worthy of a "serious" encyclopedia. Seriousness is not a stated goal of Wikipedia. Here is an abortive attempt at considering why it is considered shameful. In Slang & sociability: in-group language among college students there is a scholarly analysis of the fact that it only applies to women. Now, this is the kind of coverage in secondary sources that means the article can't be deleted. But I cannot find coverage of the origins of the phrase, which is why I said to merge to one night stand above. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: I was wondering about the origin as well, perhaps some source on that will turn up, as similarly happened in the recent Guido (slang) AfD. Whilst adding a few more references to the article I found a newspaper reference from 1992 that shows it is already established on college campuses at that point.  I also added a reference to a 2008 in-depth journal article that analyzes the term.--Milowent (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try the keyword "attested". Abductive  (reasoning) 22:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand you, joking or not. Anyhow, the first news references to the term "walk of shame" via google news are from newswire stories in 1980, when the addition of a star to the Hollywood walk of fame for Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was said to turn it into a "walk of shame.".  References through the 80s deal with the decaying status of the Walk of Fame, and then to decaying sidewalks generally in 1989.  I see college paper references to the term in March 1991, though that may be when Google started coverage of those papers.  I realize this OR is not helpful unless a source corroborates.--Milowent (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Attest or attested is a term used by linguists for identifying occurrences (usually first occurrences) of a word in a language (or region). For example, see these Google Scholar results for groovy attested. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Good to know.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the info provided by Abductive, meet WP:GNG. BTW I went to college in the 80s and used the term. J04n(talk page) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely a notable expression. It wouldn't take that much effort to clean this article up.   S warm  ( Talk ) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: As I didn't !vote in my discussion above, I shall now, based on the existence of real sources analyzing this amusing term.--Milowent (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.